In 2009, YouTuber Jonathan Mann made a name for himself with his “Song A Day” challenge. Over the years, Mann has mined the minutiae of his everyday life and current events for song ideas, but his 2007th song is perhaps his most clever, collaborative effort. “Ginsberg’s Hobby Lobby Dissent,” is exactly what you think it is, and it’s amazing. Rather than putting a heavy spin on Justice Ginsberg’s scathing 35-page dissent to yesterday’s 5-4 decision in Hobby Lobby’s favor, Mann decided to just sing it more or less outright.

Comments

Imagine how different the outcome would be if WOMEN had the vote on what to do with their bodies. ALL three women of the Supreme Court ruled differently than the MEN who ruled for Hobby Lobby. Interesting.

Posted by: Chrislam | Jul 1, 2014 2:33:57 PM

this decision is shameful, political, and disregards the constitution. if i was a woman, i'd be angry. as a gay man, i'm concerned this won't be the last of similar rulings for "family owned" businesses with "deeply held" beliefs.

the decision irreparably hurts our nation, all businesses, and religion itself - they are masterminding their own downfall, but we have to deal with the damage during the fall.

Posted by: northalabama | Jul 1, 2014 2:52:33 PM

Why does it matter that he's handsome? I'm all for appreciating cute boys but come on lets grow up just a tad. It's the quality of his character that counts.

Posted by: Tyler | Jul 1, 2014 2:58:57 PM

I have a feeling that gays and lesbians will have to arm themselves with than a guitar (and quite literally) to defend against this kind of aggression by the Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito Far Right faction of the Supreme Court.

Scalia my well die off soon enough, but Roberts and Alito are still young enough to inflict damage on generations of women, LGBTs, and racial minorities.

Posted by: By Any Means Necessary | Jul 1, 2014 3:36:55 PM

Almost all of the rhetoric about the ruling seems geared towards the upcoming election, one way or the other. The basic problem is that for some reason everyone was fine if a non-profit didn't want to offer birth control, but if a for-profit didn't then it's the end of the world for women. The election is shaping up between married women with kids that saw their insurance premiums double versus single women that want insurance mandates. Republicans have been courting families that soured on Obamacare for over a year now. Is there time to turn it around? I doubt it since the rhetorical reply is that the ruling will save people money on their premiums.

It's absolutely amazing; a USA Supreme Court stuck in the 1550's........and as far as I know no reference to the decision's antecedents.

Where are you Rachel Maddow ?

Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 1, 2014 3:53:19 PM

People like this guitarist make me scared for the nation's future. This decision did not affect the legality and/or availability of any contraception to any person. The idea that you do not have access to something when you must pay for it yourself is absurd and dangerous. One does not need to look any further than the Soviet Union to see how such 'bread and circus' societies end. They collapse. Just ask Greece. This guy really needs to brush up on his economics.

Posted by: Joe | Jul 1, 2014 3:56:03 PM

Joe- you are wrong, contraception is expensive. Collapse and rebuild sounds fine to me.

@Anon: "This decision did not affect the legality and/or availability of any contraception to any person."

Not only is this statement a conflated distortion, it's a deliberate lie. No one could be so stupid as to fail to understand that if a person is forced to pay for medicine or a medical procedure or medical care TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND WHICH THEY CANNOT OTHERWISE AFFORD, they are denied availability.

What's worse, there is no explanation by Alito or Kennedy about why THIS PARTICULAR coverage (for contraceptives) defers to the RFRA, and why others do not. None. This is a clear set up to allow religious bigots (who are also employers) as well as plain corporate opportunists to claim "religious" exemptions to any number of civil rights laws aimed at employing employees and consumers from unjust discrimination.

Notably, you do not see such fundamentalist plaintiffs opposing healthcare coverage for erectile dysfunction. The opposition to the contraceptive coverage mandate is a clear aggression against women's rights, and we have 5 OLDER MALE Supreme Courts justices who find this perfectly acceptable, even desirable. These MEN are traitors and should be tried and dealt with as such.

Demand Judicial Reform NOW and start with the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Would Break Your Jaw If Possible | Jul 1, 2014 4:38:23 PM

Can we just agree that the performer is adorable in a nerdy, geeky way?

Posted by: clayton | Jul 1, 2014 5:29:59 PM

NOOOOOOOOOOOO........

Belgium 2
USA 0

Ahhhhh !!!!

Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 1, 2014 6:16:02 PM

Mother of the Gods :
USA have scored !!
USA 1
Belgium 2.
Go USA.

Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 1, 2014 6:18:50 PM

I guess it's good that he's handsome, otherwise his video and song would never have made it here...

Posted by: Tre | Jul 1, 2014 8:20:58 PM

Can we not give him some credit for putting important points from a Supreme Court dissent in a song that actually works. I hope somebody does a cover with a full studio background. It makes me wanna march and the remix would surely make me wanna dance.

Posted by: Markt | Jul 1, 2014 11:11:54 PM

You all realize that the Affordable Care Act has a contraceptive mandate that only requires all FDA approved contraception for women to be covered but requires absolutely no contraception FOR MEN to be covered? Also, Hobby Lobby is only refusing to cover 4 of of the sixteen forms of female contraception its plan used to cover. That means HL is still covering six times as many forms of contraception for women than men.

Wake up, everyone. Why are you worried about Hobby Lobby when the Obama administration has been discriminating against men since the inception of the ACA?

Posted by: avern | Jul 2, 2014 2:12:51 AM

Anon, premiums will not decrease because of this ruling that is pure BS, the insurance carrier's profit margins for these particular groups will increase and probably not that much; this was purely a terrible political stunt on the part of the Christian right to force their beliefs on others, their version of Sharia law.

Posted by: NwYrkr | Jul 2, 2014 9:01:34 AM

On purely actuarial grounds, insurers should offer to pay for contraceptive and abortion services. It's much cheaper than letting pregnancy go to term.

Obviously, questions of religion and politics have overridden profit and loss; if they didn't, we wouldn't be burdened with the Hyde amendment.

Posted by: Rich-SD | Jul 3, 2014 12:10:37 AM

Justice Kennedy said (perhaps to himself):
"At the outset it should be said that the Court’s opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it"

Other blogs point out that the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga decision has already been expanded, by the Supreme Court.

Three Catholic companies wanted to ban ALL 20 contraceptive methods, and the US Supreme Court declined to hear their cases, which were decided in their favor in lower courts.

Hercules Industries
Grote Industries
Korte & Luitjohan Contractors

(and there are other cases affected, sent back for reconsideration in light of Hobby Lobby/Conestoga)